http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 5:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 5:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 5:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 8:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
Ballmer is going to either start laughing himself to death or have a fit. No way is the bald master of sweat going to allow Apple to get control of anything that runs on a Windows machine. It's always better to have a half-dozen cheap interfaces on a Windows computer than an expensive one. In many ways that does make sense because almost nobody wants to have to upgrade their external devices with new ones just because the connectors have changed. Anyone selling a Light Peak to USB 2 dongle yet?

I can't wait until 2011 when all the Macs come equipped with Light Peak as their only connector. Hey, wait a minute, there are no companies that make peripherals that use Light Peak, except Apple.]]>Sep 26th 2009 8:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 9:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://news.cnet.com/FireWire-to-get-big-push-at-Comdex/2100-1001_3-247169.html

"FireWire is Apple's name for the IEEE 1394 High Speed Serial Bus. It was initiated by Apple (in 1986[2]) and developed by the IEEE P1394 Working Group, largely driven by contributions from Apple..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewire

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/TECH/computing/01/24/apple.firewire.idg/index.html

http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/5062/

USB was the alternative standard. Firewire was the standard Apple was pushing. And it lost. They didn't invent USB, they adopted it.

"USB was created by a core group of companies that consisted of Compaq, Digital, IBM, Intel, Northern Telecom, and Microsoft."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus

By the way, Apple didn't invent this crap either. It's an IBM tech from 15+ years ago. Optical Computing. IBM and Intel were working on optical interconnects forever, so please stop making shit up.

]]>Sep 26th 2009 11:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 27th 2009 8:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
I dont think Gamechld said Apple invented USB technology just that they push it into the mainstream with the IMac at a time when MS and PC Hardware manufacturers where dragging their feet and still fussing around with devices like the floppy drive. You can't knock Apple for that.]]>Sep 27th 2009 11:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
Do some of you Mac zealots even live on the same planet as the rest of us?

]]>Sep 27th 2009 9:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
2-3% of sales across the PC market and 95% of sales across the USB fitted market. Nothing like a good ol zealot to make a senseless comment and omit half the facts. (My percentage is just as made up as yours just to keep with the theme)

At the time Windows boxes were all parallel and serial with the very advanced PS2 connection for keyboards and mice, they even scoffed when the iMac mentioned didn't come with a floppy drive. You could get plug in cards with USB or buy specialised ASUS motherboards and build your own box.

Anyway, optical interconnects were also used by Cray, purchased by Silicon Graphics and called Cray Link, they allowed for massive parallel computing without each processor needing to be next to each other. I'm with Mark, who ever invented it, great, let's just get it and use it so we can stop dicking around with USB, FW400, FW800, FW3200, ESATA, HDMI, DP, DVI, RJ45, VGA and FC. It's a mess of purpose built high speed standards at the moment. A single cable will be gold

..it will probably also cost like gold in the first instance as well. Sigh, time for another round of early adopter pain.]]>Sep 27th 2009 9:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
http://www.computersciencelab.com/ComputerHistory/History.htm

http://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/

http://www.phy.ornl.gov/csep/ov/node8.html

http://www.levenez.com/lang/lang.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_hardware
]]>Sep 28th 2009 12:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
"No way is the bald master of sweat going to allow Apple to get control of anything that runs on a Windows machine. It's always better to have a half-dozen cheap interfaces on a Windows computer than an expensive one. In many ways that does make sense because almost nobody wants to have to upgrade their external devices with new ones just because the connectors have changed. Anyone selling a Light Peak to USB 2 dongle yet?

I can't wait until 2011 when all the Macs come equipped with Light Peak as their only connector. Hey, wait a minute, there are no companies that make peripherals that use Light Peak, except Apple."


^Because clearly, Apple has never backed a new standard and had it pan out.

Additionally, in response to Firewire losing to USB:
Firewire did great against USB 1.0, and helped people get a foothold into the digital home movie scene. USB 2.0, is where Firewire lost some steam. I assume Firewire800 is a nice interface for content creation, but USB 3.0 and eSATA seem like rising stars that can kill off Firewire for good. Not that thats a bad thing, it's served its purpose well enough.]]>Sep 28th 2009 4:31AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Oct 22nd 2009 3:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 5:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 6:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
Stupid company, standards are what people want, standards are what people need. Stop trying to create your own formats like Sony does and just give us what we want.]]>Sep 26th 2009 9:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
Ever hear of USB, Apple? Maybe, you know, USB 3.0. A standard connection that is compatible with past devices with the same type of plug. Not so difficult is it.]]>Sep 26th 2009 9:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
If more people thought like you then the world would still be stuck on serial/parallel cables and PS/2 connectors. It's also funny that people like you love to bash Apple and say not a peep about Intel, you know, the company who will actually inject Light Peak into computers in the coming years. I bet you probably don't know that, much like USB, Light Peak will be a standard available for all manufacturers to use. So quit living in the past or the future will just pass you by.]]>Sep 27th 2009 10:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
So, if I get new "LightPeak" only machines to replace what I currently have, I can look forward to buying multiple:

LightPeak to USB adapters
LightPeak to HDMI adapters
LightPeak to ethernet adapters
LightPeak to SPIDF adapters

OR invest in brand new HDTVs and AV receivers that have LightPeak built into it...

Yay for the aftermarket adapter business, I guess... :/

Think I'll wait out the revolution until it's proven to 'stick'...]]>Oct 13th 2009 2:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 5:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 5:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
This is like when they bridged the components on the motherboard with light, but this is like bridging completely separate devices. They appear to be using their strength of controlling their hardware to their advantage.]]>Sep 26th 2009 5:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
1) But it doesn't matter if something is connected via USB internally, because I never have to connect or disconnect it. Keep in mind, even USB 2.0 can handle 480 Mbps - well over even 802.11n standards. Making a huge deal out of this for WiFi purposes is like making a big deal out of 6 Gbps transfer rates for hard drives - just way too much bandwidth for what is even theoretically required.

2) You both couldn't and wouldn't want to wirelessly connect the parts of your computer. Part of the problem that WiFi and indeed, IP has to overcome is the issue of dropped packets. If the very basic lowest-level processing had a lost packet, I'd be more worried about system stability. And even if there wasn't any such worries - why would you do such a thing? Why would I ever want to spread out the components of my computer - it just makes it harder for me to move my computer when I need to do so. The only reason I could think of is if you wanted to communalize computing resources within your own home - but the barriers for that are more software oriented than hardware oriented, especially when we have Gigabit wired technology readily available for residential purposes.]]>Sep 26th 2009 5:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 6:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
Faster interconnects like USB 3.0, and then down the road with Lightpeak are important. The use to you may not be obvious in your home life, but somewhere out there, your using service run on a server that can take advantage of this bandwidth today. And in a few years time, those benefits will roll down into the consumer space.

Perfect example, I bet in 2001 you would have said 64 bit is pointless. However, even at that time plenty of servers were needing more then 4GB of ram per application. That groundwork for 64 bit (going back even into the 90s) is slowly working its way into the home.

Don't dismiss the need of future technology so fast, otherwise your quotes will sound just as dated as the often quoted "Noone will ever need more then 640k of memory" comment.]]>Sep 26th 2009 6:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 6:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Optical is something different and more difficult and more expensive to build. And with optical alone you aren't able to power a device.
Also think about all the small developers who use microcontrollers to create new useful devices. It's much easier to do this with USB than with any optical solution, especially because they don't need this huge data transfer. So I don't expect that it will replace USB, rather add another connection which maybe replaces eSATA (and maybe SATA) and Display Ports and adds a high bandwidth interface for external GPUs.
You also shouldn't forget that the used network cables are still CAT cables, so if you have a notebook with such a light peak connection only, you'll always need an additional external adapter, cumbersome.
And finally, back to all those internal peripherals like mouse/keyboard/buttons and other things, they don't need the high bandwidth, and to keep the costs as low as possible they will continue using USB, or the LPC interface they currently use.

Optical transmission in the consumer sector is finally possible and a good technology, and I hope it will replace all the useless other high speed ports (Firewire, USB3, eSATA, SATA, DVI, DisplayPort, HDMI), but the low speed ports (USB2) will stay.]]>Sep 26th 2009 6:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
imagine having one central processor in the basement which could be easily upgraded, which also handles ram and graphics, and the actual computers could just be input output peripherals. think how much this would advance home automation systems, how much it would take that step forward of harmonizing your devices. imagine coming home and dropping your Zune onto your surface and suddenly having your whole wall turn into your jukebox, and all this without any of them needed processors, or other wired components that today's technology needs.

i think the biggest obstacle is the fact that there is no good wireless power solution, and the bandwidth that this allows for, whereas the advancement of usb may solve all of this. with home automation you could just wire usb into the house walls, and with portable devices you'd want them to have their own processors regardless. i suppose they should work with the usb guys and go for a hybrid wireless wired system, and make that the standard for all types of data and power transfers for any electronic. i mean, intel does employ the co inventor of usb does it not?]]>Sep 26th 2009 6:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 8:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
The only other devices I can think of are external firewire hard drives for those mac users who refuse to use usb

In the beginning Firewire was supposed to be this grand connection....and no, it definitely wasn't.]]>Sep 26th 2009 11:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
This could change with USB 3, but if it does, it will be very slowly, because gear compatibility is a serious issue in the pro world.

On topic, I'll just say I'm a strong supporter of optical connections, and I wish they'd have been widely adopted earlier.]]>Sep 27th 2009 2:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/The answer: None

When firewire first came out it was supposed to be the holy grail and in all of our modern products Even the first few iPods had it until Apple dropped the support for it because USB far surpassed it. By standards of what it was supposed to be, firewire was a failure.

The same will happen with this. USB is way too common and way too universal. Here we have yet another connection type that's supposed to replace a bunch of other connections. Fact is, it won't happen. USB 3.0 is obviously going to be around a while before this gets released. By that time USB 4 will probably be on the horizon, probably able to do all light peak is proposing, and again, beat out the competition. This is just yet another connection in the world of connections that is not going to deliver.]]>Sep 27th 2009 2:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
Saying that Firewire was not a failure because it's still used in the pro video market is like saying OS/2 was not a failure in trying to be the dominant desktop OS back in the day because it's still used in many ATM's.

Furthermore, a lot of stuff just doesn't need that kind of throughput, even theoretically. Mice, numeric keypads - how are these supposed to even max out the throughput of USB 2.0? Some stuff just plain does not and cannot benefit from godly amounts of throughput. My response about 6 Gbps was taken out of context - I said for HARD drives, not SSD's. Even Raptor drives barely push the throughput of SATA 1.5. If you really want to get more throughput, then put integrated RAID on the drive - make each platter a separate drive and have RAID 0 between them, so that you can double your performance and still have the drive look like a single HDD to the OS and BIOS. Even if you had to make it a 5.25" HDD (with 3.5" platters) so that you could have room to put in the integrated RAID controller, it would still be worth it, especially until miniaturization brings the space requirements back down to 3.5" and eventually 2.5".

And because Engadget through one of my comments away, I'm just going to say again - I'm not against future technology. There will be a load of stuff that WILL need more throughput, and can benefit from optical tech. But that's not what Apple is trying to do here - Apple is currently trying to use optical tech to eliminate the need for different connectors on your computer. In Apple's future, your Ethernet, mouse, and external display all plug into identical connectors, which means that if you have 4 of these connectors you'll have the flexibility to connect, say, either 4 displays or 4 gamepads, for more flexibility. That's all well and good, but it costs a ridiculous amount of money on R&D for this for what is a mere convenience most of the time. If it was being developed as a Firewire sequel, then great - but that's not the foundational purpose here apparently.]]>Sep 27th 2009 3:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 27th 2009 3:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
Though light peak looks good now, it will never become what it is proposing to be. USB 3 will overshadow it in the market and whatever USB evolves to next will further that.

I'm also saying, yes firewire is used a lot in the pro world, namely camcorders and mac users who use external drives, but as far as consumers (the majority market) are concerned, firewire what?

]]>Sep 27th 2009 5:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
"Noone will ever need more than 18 exabytes of memory."]]>Sep 28th 2009 1:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 5:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
Hold on there captain enthusiasm...

Apple just got around to supporting MMS on a cell phone..

its gonna be a many millenia before you see USB 3 on anything Apple...

But it is nice to dream]]>Sep 26th 2009 5:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/I think Apple may skip USB 3.0 entirely for Light Peak, from my understanding of this article. If they do go with USB 3.0 it'd be sooner or never at all. ]]>Sep 26th 2009 5:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
Right because before that they had EMAIL. Some might argue are more important and useful form of communication.

And Steve said, "What? MMS? People actually use that...?"

Apple is so low-tech they brought out a laptop that's half an inch thick. And you guys are fretting about USB plugs? Lame.
]]>Sep 26th 2009 7:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
Yes because Apple did never release a 3.5mm Heaphone jack...........THAT WAS RECESSED and needed an iAdapter


OH yes because Apple is so high tech that they release a laptop that fir into a manilla envelope..... THAT NEEDED A USB iAdapter to access it...

Hmmm you see a pettern here


nub?]]>Sep 26th 2009 8:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 5:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 5:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 5:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 8:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 5:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 5:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 5:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/Sep 26th 2009 6:08PM